Not if centralized, that's for certain. I see the solution in the free competition of issuers.
i.e. stable coins plateau and then bitcoin eats into their share.
That's assuming that stablecoins have not solved the problem themselves (in which case bitcoin would lose its edge). My argument is that they will be more adopted than bitcoin because they will solve the problem, and that bitcoin will be adopted indirectly in consequence, for I think that the only stablecoin which can properly solve the problem has to be built upon bitcoin.
Until that's done, this will be an eternal battle between bitcoin trying to rise (prevented of doing so because of the volatility implied by the paradox) and an unending series of stablecoins rising to eat the share of the falling stablecoins, which will keep bitcoin's share at bay as the race to the same plateau never ends but remains a boom-and-bust cycle.
Hence the reason the only solution to the paradox is a hybrid: not "stablecoins or bitcoin", but a stablecoin built upon bitcoin.
Not if centralized, that's for certain. I see the solution in the free competition of issuers.
That's assuming that stablecoins have not solved the problem themselves (in which case bitcoin would lose its edge). My argument is that they will be more adopted than bitcoin because they will solve the problem, and that bitcoin will be adopted indirectly in consequence, for I think that the only stablecoin which can properly solve the problem has to be built upon bitcoin.
Until that's done, this will be an eternal battle between bitcoin trying to rise (prevented of doing so because of the volatility implied by the paradox) and an unending series of stablecoins rising to eat the share of the falling stablecoins, which will keep bitcoin's share at bay as the race to the same plateau never ends but remains a boom-and-bust cycle.
Hence the reason the only solution to the paradox is a hybrid: not "stablecoins or bitcoin", but a stablecoin built upon bitcoin.